[2022] C1 Ariete

Hello. I'm back as of today.

The report in question does not really provide any new information for the developers to make any changes on. It does not show any of the values it currently has are incorrect, or provide any alternative values for the developers to change the current values too. Currently, its armour in game, like with most modern armour, is made based on the developers methods we detailed here: https://warthunder.com/en/news/7289-development-reports-concerning-the-protection-of-post-war-combat-vehicles-en

Naturally we welcome further valid sources, but as the report currently stands it A) Uses datamined information, which the developers do not accept in reports B) Provides no new values on which to make changes to the kit. Comments such as "for the protection of the turret and hull from direct hits with APFSDS" are extremely open ended and many previous reports of the same nature (Challenger 1 and Leclerc, among others) have not been accepted for similar reasons.

Players choosing to illegally post and share content that is not in the public domain, classified or in any other way restricted has nothing to do with us. We make it very clear that we do not condone or support the publication of any restricted material of any nature or kind. We have also made it clear that doing so will not lead to a change of any kind. Instead the relevant actions will be taken according to any legal requirements as well as account punishments.

This is clear from our historical reporting guidelines and also the general

Gaijin Community guidelines under section 6.

We have made it clear we will only ever use publicly available information and in many cases with modern vehicles, this amounts to estimations based off the material that is available rather than any kind of direct figures as they simply do not exist in any meaningful way in the public domain: https://warthunder.com/en/news/7289-development-reports-concerning-the-protection-of-post-war-combat-vehicles-en

We are not asking or expecting anyone to locate more sources if none exist. Simply that with the report in its current state, it cannot progress further at this time. The developers are constantly working on improvements to existing vehicles, which can often lead to a change in the way something is modelled when more information does become available or additional information is procured. Which is done on an internal level too, without the need for external reports sometimes.

As previously explained however, there have been many reports of this nature that are based solely on sources that mentioned the estimated intended protection that the vehicle was planned to receive, which can sometimes be higher than what it actually ended up being. Similar cases came up before with the Challenger series that had conflicting information also working on "planned" or "desired" protection levels that contracted either each other or other known information. This is not exclusive to Italy or any one nation. But simply loose sources that provide no real solid or quantifiable information used on the basis that something is wrong in game don't really lead to any possible changes being possible.

The developers have already seen the report in its current state and as I mentioned, as of right now nothing can be done with the information provided without any additional information. We have not closed the report for this reason, as new sources are still welcome. But at this time, nothing within it can lead to any changes.

The developers don't accept reports based on datamined information, because it can often be misinterpreted or misunderstood. The values often do not 1:1 mean what they appear to say as it can sometimes be necessary to have code reflected in certain ways to archive a particular effect or outcome that isn't possible any other way within the constrictions of the game itself.

As such, we cannot accept reports that rely solely on datamined information.

I was responding to the question of why datamining reports are not accepted. I have already clarified the reasons why this report is not valid. Regardless of the fact it has the protection analysis elements in there too.

As I mentioned, the developers have reviewed the report already in its current state and nothing can be changed as the sources presented give any information about possible / intended protection. Without any additional information, the devs cant do anything with it.

I have already responded to the other points and developers stance on the report in the rest of the response.

As I mentioned, there is nothing more to add at this time without any additional information.

We have already previously explained in detail how modern armour is handled with regards to vehciles that do not have complete sources available in detail here: https://warthunder.com/en/news/7289-development-reports-concerning-the-protection-of-post-war-combat-vehicles-en - armour is created with any publicly known information possible and estimated from any sources or evidence possible. Some tanks have far more information available than others.

As it mentions, the developers are open to considering suggestions for armour changes providing it meets the basic guidelines for repeorts to be made. In this case, they reviewed the report already after we passed feedback on the matter as it is and don't find it viable to make any changes based on the information within as nothing really is mentioned. Primary sources are not needed or expected in this case. But in the current report, the sources barely mention protect at all other than its intended / desired purpose is for KE protections. Other than the general request for improving protection, there isn't anything of substance for the developers to even estimate improvements on at this time. The information thus far doesn't lead to any conclusion. As I previously mentioned, we don't exclude the possibility that protection may be improved over time if new information is located by the Dev team too.

Not nessiary. Simply that none of the sources within the report provide any level of even estimated or claimed protect levels. In many other cases, secondary sources or other information that at least provides broader information on what shells it was intended to defeat or what it actually aimed to provide protection against in a general sense too can be used for consideration. In this case, it simply says the itended purpose is KE protection. But that's just simply open ended.

On question, I covered that here:

Even a basic source that gives an idea of what shells spesifcally it was supposed to provide protection against (not just generically saying KE as that's extremely open ended) would help provide a better picture of what sort of estimated protection it may have. Other tanks have had sources like this taken into consideration for their armour. A direct value is often not possible, but having no framework at all to base it on unfortunately means nothing can be changed in the meantime.

On the second point, I'm aware that it's generally (in most cases) not directed at me. I and anyone else providing responses can appreciate frustration that a particular vehcile might not be the way you particularly want to see it. All I can do however is relay the facts as they are from the developers and provide the responses in what can and can't be accepted.

We haven't closed the report for this reason, and as I mentioned, the devs have taken a look already prior to us forwarding it to conclude it (currently) wasn't something we can pass on in its state right now. But as I also mentioned future changes or reviews to any of our modern vehicles have not been ruled out. The Ariete included.

It remains open but was attached to this report as they were both of the same thing (I cant see this report as its on the RU forum)

https://forum.warthunder.ru/index.php?/topic/266178-oshibki-v-modeli-ariete/

Its not within any immediate plans for the release of drones, however we will be looking to collect all feedback when they go into testing